the H3DII39 is the best deal, or try to get the first H3D39 in good condition- is cheap and great quality. H4D50 would be a case if you would print much, much bigger that A1.If you work outside the H4D40 would be good becouse of the hgher Iso but for good results they all can be used with max 200 Asa only- beuiite 50-100 ASA.IF you want also use the back on technical camera than foget the 40 mln chip.this is my posision, maybe others had other experiances.b.r.roman

The H4D40 has the best full-resolution high ISO performance of any medium format back I would say close to two stops better than the H3D39. By that I mean if you are happy with 39 files at 200ISO you will be happy with 40 files at 800ISO. The colours will also be more accurate on the 40 especially reds. I don't have any experience of the 50 (also Kodak chip) to offer sorry.Nick-T

I shot the H3DII39 only once for a portrait, delicious files! This is a great camera for shooting people, great reproduction of skin from this camera.

I shot a H4D 50 once in studio all day about 1000 frames, the files were noticeably better that what I was used to. It was surprising actually. Then a gain I shot the camera at base iso (50) and had full control of the lighting.

I have been shooting a H4D 40 for about two years the 40 is an all round great camera. Very Good ISO 800 files as long as the light is not mixed. Very fast shooting speed, enough fps to people in a candid interactive way. Excellent color from Phocus, and very accurate auto focus.

You cant go wrong but if you know that you can control the lighting and avoid ISO higher than 200 then the H4D 50 would be my choice.

For portraits IŽd go with the biggers sensors. YouŽll get more control of DOF.

I have a H3D39 "I" and like it a lot. But skin tones sometimes come out a bit purple. I heard about the great color of the 50 and if I could justify the expenses at the moment IŽd go for one.

The 39 is a great camera. MF files have to be tweaked in Photoshop anyway, so a bit of work on the skin tones should not keep you away from it. Better to have the rich colors of a MF sensor for post production than the flat output of a 35mm system.

For portraits IŽd go with the biggers sensors. YouŽll get more control of DOF.

I have a H3D39 "I" and like it a lot. But skin tones sometimes come out a bit purple. I heard about the great color of the 50 and if I could justify the expenses at the moment IŽd go for one.

The 39 is a great camera. MF files have to be tweaked in Photoshop anyway, so a bit of work on the skin tones should not keep you away from it. Better to have the rich colors of a MF sensor for post production than the flat output of a 35mm system.

Bernd

Besides the bit about flat color from a DSLR, I agree with you about the H4D-50 or the 39 II. The problem with the 39 "I" is the IR filter. It was changed in the 39II. The 39 I had some issues with ghosting from the IR filter and color COULD be odd.

I've had my issues with DSLR color, and MFD color, over the years. The last time I thought DSLR color was flat was the 1ds2 and 5d, sometimes. The D3x and D800 changed that perception for me. I do think color from a back is better out of the box, but after all the post we all do to the files, I don't see much of a difference in the end. Disclaimer, I've never used any of the newer backs. I've seen files from the H4D50, very nice indeed.

I shoot mostly portrait and fine arts. Mostly B&W, max A2 format. I can buy the following cameras :

* a H3DII 39 for 6,500 usd* a H4D40 for 10,000 usd* a H4D50 for 13,000 usd

What's the best deal? I would tend to go for the H4D40, but I hesitate if a 50 would be a better deal for only 3,000 more.

The larger sensor dimensions of the H4D50 alone are worth the extra $ 3,000.It's really rather pointless IMHO to get a "crop sensor" MF camera. Really no point in getting a 44x33mm MF sensor camera when you can get a more capable 35mm DSLR new for way less. IF you are going to live with the limitations of MF you should IMO at least opt for the largest physical sensor.MF digital really is the "bottom end" of capture size for MF. For that reason you should get the biggest sensor so as to approach the look of large image capture..... and I'm talking about capture area not MP.

The H3D-39 would be better than the H4D 40 IMO.

However if you shoot mainly black and white portraits I would consider film with a 6x7 or larger and a d800 for your digital needs.

Besides the bit about flat color from a DSLR, I agree with you about the H4D-50 or the 39 II. The problem with the 39 "I" is the IR filter. It was changed in the 39II. The 39 I had some issues with ghosting from the IR filter and color COULD be odd.

I've had my issues with DSLR color, and MFD color, over the years. The last time I thought DSLR color was flat was the 1ds2 and 5d, sometimes. The D3x and D800 changed that perception for me. I do think color from a back is better out of the box, but after all the post we all do to the files, I don't see much of a difference in the end. Disclaimer, I've never used any of the newer backs. I've seen files from the H4D50, very nice indeed.

Do you know if the IR filter makes much of a difference in normal shooting as far as color?

Do you know if the IR filter makes much of a difference in normal shooting as far as color?

Not that I remember. I never did a side by side comparason as I used them for differnt jobs and they were rentals.

Shoot with a bright light source in the frame and you get a halo/glow around the light. This to me was an issue, because I like to use practicals as much as possible. In truth I think only I noticed it.

to the H3D39: I had never had problems with the filter, never get this helos, I worked also with mixed light, strong light in the night ...I saw it on a comparision between H3D39 and phase one 45 ( same kodak chip) on web, but never see it on my back.I had other problem before: the white calibration was very bad- with hard magenta cast. I worked always with manual calibration-than the colors were good.This year I send the camera to hasselblad and they changed the mainboard and the white calibration unit: costs about 3000 euro.now the calibration is perfect, even the reds in skin-faces.I have also Leaf 12 but for some works I prefer still the H3D. I like the contrast and colors of it, H3D50 seems to be more soft for me (very little)- I rented it once.I think when money is not the important case so the newer sensor will be always the best way, but if price is important the H3D, H3dII is absolutly the best choise and I doubt it very much if on the print there will be any difference between H3D39 and H3D50. The quality of the lens, the way of using light and photo-technik will make the difference but not the chip.

to the H3D39: I had never had problems with the filter, never get this helos, I worked also with mixed light, strong light in the night ...I saw it on a comparision between H3D39 and phase one 45 ( same kodak chip) on web, but never see it on my back.I had other problem before: the white calibration was very bad- with hard magenta cast. I worked always with manual calibration-than the colors were good.This year I send the camera to hasselblad and they changed the mainboard and the white calibration unit: costs about 3000 euro.now the calibration is perfect, even the reds in skin-faces.I have also Leaf 12 but for some works I prefer still the H3D. I like the contrast and colors of it, H3D50 seems to be more soft for me (very little)- I rented it once.I think when money is not the important case so the newer sensor will be always the best way, but if price is important the H3D, H3dII is absolutly the best choise and I doubt it very much if on the print there will be any difference between H3D39 and H3D50. The quality of the lens, the way of using light and photo-technik will make the difference but not the chip.

Very similar experiences with H3D39 (first version) here. You canŽt go wrong with the H3D39II.